Improving Fraction Understanding in Sixth Graders with Mathematics Difficulties: Effects of a Number Line Approach Combined with Cognitive Learning Strategies [Fractions intervention vs. control]
Barbieri, Christina A.; Rodrigues, Jessica; Dyson, Nancy; Jordan, Nancy C. (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595952
-
examining51Students, grade6
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Arithmetic |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.66 |
6.94 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fraction Arithmetic |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
7.06 |
5.84 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NAEP released items (Barbieri 2019) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.14 |
11.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
NAEP released items (Barbieri 2019) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
14.84 |
12.20 |
Yes |
|
||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
10% English language learners -
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Northeast
-
Race Black 43% Other or unknown 10% White 47% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 32%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in the northeastern United States. Participants were sixth grade students enrolled in two schools. The schools were racially and ethnically diverse and only 45% of students scored with the proficiency range on the state mathematics assessment in the previous years.
Study sample
Sample characteristics for the intervention condition were as follows: 50% male, 32.14% receiving Special Education services, 7.14% English Language Learners, 25% classified as having a math learning disability, 28.57% classified as having a reading learning disability, and 3.57% classified as having a behavioral disability. Sample characteristics for the control condition were as follows: 34.78% male, 30.43% receiving Special Education services, 13.04% English Language Learners, 30.43% classified as having a math learning disability, and 30.43% classified as having a reading learning disability.
Intervention Group
There were 27 lessons focused on fractions concepts. Equivalencies and magnitude were a primary focus for fractions less than and greater than one, often referred to as proper, improper, or mixed fractions. Measurement with rulers and cups was included along with emphasis on a number line. Lessons were explicit and included cognitive learning strategies such as representational gesturing and interleaved practice. Interventionists provided specific and immediate feedback. The intervention took place over a 6 week period for 45 minutes a day in addition to students regular mathematics instruction. The intervention was provided to small groups of students by a trained instructor.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in their school's mathematics curriculum, the Connected Mathematics Project. During the period when their intervention peers received small group instruction, comparison students worked individually using computer adaptive software, Dreambox Learning in one school and i-Ready in the other school.
Support for implementation
Interventionists were provided scripted lessons. Each interventionist received 16 hours of training by one of the study authors. Training included structured practice implementing key parts of the intervention with fellow interventionists.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).